E-Paper
Court slams Delhi Police for not submitting CCTV footage
A Delhi court criticized police for not providing CCTV footage to verify the legality of Rajesh Prajapati's arrest in the death of Kamal Dhyani.
A city court has reprimanded the Delhi Police for failing to provide CCTV footage from Janakpuri police station to ascertain whether Rajesh Prajapati – the sub-contractor accused in the death of 25-year-old Kamal Dhyani who fell into an unguarded pit – was illegally arrested, stating that the investigating officer (IO)’s evasive replies “do not inspire confidence.”
In an order passed on March 28, judicial magistrate first class Harjot Singh Aujla of Dwarka courts noted that the police’s shifting and mutually inconsistent stands in response to Prajapati’s plea seeking release on grounds of illegal detention did not inspire confidence in the arresting procedure.
“The shifting and mutually inconsistent stands emerging from the reply and subsequent submissions of the IO do not inspire confidence,” the court said, adding that the IO’s conduct “deserves serious criticism” after the officer first produced footage from the front gate of the police station contrary to his own version that the accused was brought from the back side.
Prajapati, currently in judicial custody, claims his arrest was illegal and unconstitutional. His plea alleges he was illegally apprehended on February 6 but was produced before the magistrate only two days later, on February 8. Under Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), police are required to produce an arrested person before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours, excluding travel time.
The case stems from the death of Kamal Dhyani, who fell into a 4.5-metre-deep excavation pit around 12.15am on February 6 while returning home in Palam Colony. Police said he remained trapped for nearly eight hours despite several people, including Prajapati, being aware of the incident but failing to alert authorities or attempt a rescue.
The court had directed the station house officer (SHO) of Janakpuri police station to place on record relevant CCTV footage to ascertain when Prajapati was apprehended and brought to the station. The court noted that when directed to produce the back gate’s footage, the IO first submitted that there were no CCTV cameras on the rear of the police station, and later said the cameras were not working – reflecting an inconsistent stand.
“Despite repeated opportunities, the IO has not placed on record any corresponding contemporaneous document, DD entry, roznamcha entry, movement record, arrival/departure entry, detention memo, interrogation proceedings, notice, or any other official record which may assist the court in determining whether the applicant was or was not apprehended, detained, or kept in custody on February 6 prior to the arrest shown on February 7,” the order read.
The court underlined that when allegations pertain to illegal detention and the issue directly touches upon the fundamental right to life and personal liberty of the accused, it was under a duty to ensure that the issue is examined effectively, on merits, and in its true letter and spirit. “Such determination cannot be left to conjectures, particularly when the material produced so far is incomplete and unsatisfactory,” the court said.
Stating that an intervention from high level was required to adjudicate the plea in a time-bound manner, the court issued notice to the deputy commissioner of police (west) to produce a comprehensive report on details regarding Prajapati’s detention, formal arrest, and relevant footage by the next date of hearing on April 4.
Dhyani is represented by advocates Aastha Chaturvedi and Pooja Sharma.
